Appeal No. 95-2721 Page 9
Application No. 08/054,927
Independent claim 1 is drawn to as an orthodontic
appliance formed of a titanium alloy. Independent claim 7 is
drawn to as an orthodontic appliance comprising a bracket
means formed of a titanium alloy. Independent claim 14 is
drawn to as an orthodontic bracket formed of a titanium alloy.
The titanium alloy recited in claims 1, 7 and 14 comprises a
$-stabilizing element including at least 12 wt% molybdenum to
produce a $-monophase that is stable at body temperature.
The combined teachings of the applied prior art (i.e.,
Sachdeva and Takahashi) do not teach or suggest as an
orthodontic appliance/bracket made from a titanium alloy
including "at least 12 wt% molybdenum to produce a $-monophase
that is stable at body temperature." While the combined
teachings of the applied prior art may suggest a titanium
alloy including "at least 12 wt% molybdenum," the combined
teachings of the applied prior art do not teach or suggest to
produce that alloy as a $-monophase that is stable at body
temperature.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007